Why Are They Saying All Those Terrible Things About Israel?

Israel-bashing in the media: is it just coincidence, or are there other factors driving this trend?

Since the start of violence in September 2000, media bias against Israel has proliferated. One question remains, however: Why have reporters and correspondents adopted these biases? Do they have a political agenda? Is it because they are anti-Israel or anti-Semitic? Is there a media conspiracy?

Here are six possible explanations for anti-Israel bias in the media:

1. Some reporters just don't know the facts.

Most reporters parachute into the region and have to learn the terrain quickly. It is relatively simple to pick up the conventional "shorthand" used by their colleagues. They can choose a few choice landmarks like the Palestinian press office at the American Colony Hotel and start to navigate. But few journalists truly know the area's history, religious background, or diplomatic record.

The correspondent thinks, "This Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo was built over the 'Green Line,' right? Therefore it must be a settlement built on Palestinian land. And that's how my predecessor described it, right?"

Wrong. Few reporters know the background of UN Resolution 242 and other international laws dealing with the return of territory. They've bought the Palestinian line that 242 obligates Israel to return all of the land, and that Israelis are prohibited from settling there. That, of course, is not the case.

Similarly, it is clear that few reporters actually read the recent "Mitchell Report." Many reporters wrote that Israel was obligated to freeze settlement activity in return for a Palestinian ceasefire. The Mitchell Report clearly called for a cessation of violence first, only then to be followed by a series of confidence-building measures.

2. Some reporters run in packs. But that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy.

For some reporters, it is easier to file the same story as their colleagues. They can share the research, the cab fare, the information, and the work -- and in some cases the ignorance. This phenomenon is called "Pack Journalism." Reporters are not supposed to copy from handouts they are given by Palestinian sources or to plagiarize from each other, but it happens.

In some cases, members of the "pack" simply "go with the flow." If BBC or Associated Press decides as a matter of policy to stop calling Palestinian suicide bombers "terrorists," other reporters follow suit.

The veteran correspondent Marvin Kalb described "Pack Journalism" this way:

"For those who still see conspiracy in examples of overlapping reporting, there is a possible explanation in what is called 'pack journalism,' reporters who band together and cover the same story, the same sources, in the same way. Covering a campaign or the White House or any other story where a horde of journalists rush after a single source can often yield the meager one-dimensional news product associated with 'pack journalism.' But, though a number of prominent news organizations may highlight similar stories, using virtually identical sources, this is not to be mistaken for conspiracy. It is only lazy journalism." (The Nixon Memo)

Perhaps it was just coincidence that led both Deborah Sontag of The New York Times and Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian (UK) to a Ramallah shrine in memory of Palestinians killed in the current uprising. In February 2001, on consecutive days, they both filed stories with identical use of the uncommon word "totem" to describe objects at the shrine. That might be dismissible as coincidence, but note the nearly identical language of both reports:

SONTAG: "Israeli critics would say that the exhibit, '100 Martyrs – 100
Lives,' glorifies death and encourages the cult of the shaheed, or martyr."

GOLDENBERG: "Israeli critics would argue that the exhibit glorifies
violent death, and promotes a cult of martyrdom."

Coincidence?

The "pack" phenomenon helps explain the five reporters who traveled to the West Bank village of Kibya a few days before the 2001 Israeli election to report on a military raid led by Ariel Sharon 48 years ago. Reporters from The Washington Post, the Observer (UK), Newsday, Agence France Press, and Salon.com all presented a detailed account of the 1953 raid, and all quoted officials from the Peace Now organization.

3. Some reporters do have a political agenda.

Consumers expect media objectivity. In reality, while writers and editors may attempt to be fair, they all have personal opinions and biases. Particularly in European and Israeli newspapers, publishers, editors and reporters frequently have a political message they wish to convey. "Advocacy journalism" is their avocation.

Fiamma Nirenstein is an Italian journalist who covers the Middle East for La Stampa. Earlier this year she filed a story on "The Journalists and the Palestinians" (translated in Commentary, January 2001):

"The culture of the press is almost entirely Left. These are people who feel the weakness of democratic values; who enjoy the frisson of sidling up to a threatening civilization that coddles them even while holding in disdain the system they represent."

The practitioners of biased political reporting will sometimes even admit their prejudices. For example, Paul Foot's column in the Guardian (UK) in praise of "indignant" journalism (February 2001):

"Anti-Arab, pro-Israel prejudice in the US is as powerful as ever, but in Britain, I would say, it is on the wane. This is thanks at least partly to strong and indignant journalism, including the commentaries from David Hirst and the recent reports from the occupied territories by the Guardian's Suzanne Goldenberg. Robert Fisk of the Independent has been gloriously and contemptuously furious at the [Israeli] bombings..."

4. Anti-Semitism may also play a role.

I am very reluctant to use the term "anti-Semitic." Criticism of the actions of Jews or of Israel does not make the critic an anti-Semite.

If, however, a reporter or editor denies Israel and Jews the same rights given to other nations and peoples, or if the Palestinians and Arabs are given preferential treatment, then perhaps the discrimination is motivated by anti-Semitism.

In this respect, double standards -- bending over backward to create a false sense of "even-handed" reporting -- smacks of anti-Semitism. For example, many reporters equated a Palestinian gunman's premeditated sniper shooting of 10-month-old Shalhevet Pass, with the accidental death of a Palestinian child at the hands of an Israeli soldier firing back at Palestinian gunmen.

Most reporters and correspondents would vehemently deny holding anti-Semitic prejudices. La Stampa's Fiamma Nirenstein, however, argued: "The truth is that Israel, as the Jewish state, is also the object of a contemporary form of anti-Semitism that is no less real for being masked or even unconscious."

Surprisingly, even Jewish journalists can have an anti-Israel agenda. In fact, the correspondents' Judaism may be a conscious or subconscious factor in the writers' desire to be "even-handed." They may feel they have to show colleagues that their faith does not deter them from being critical of Israel. They may also feel that only by being critical of Israel can they "get the story" on the Palestinian side of the border. Their job and life may depend on it.

5. Palestinian harassment leads to biased reporting.

Reporting from a war zone can be dangerous business. Around the world, correspondents have been harassed, wounded, kidnapped and killed.

In the recent violence, a few journalists have been accidentally shot by Israeli soldiers. But here's the difference. The Israeli Government does not have a policy to threaten or intimidate journalists. An Israeli soldier firing on an unarmed reporter would be court-martialed and sent to prison.

The Palestinian Authority, on the other hand, has a long-standing policy of intimidating journalists, from its PLO antecedents in Beirut, when journalists were assassinated for writing articles critical of the PLO and Arafat. Today, at least four human rights watchdog groups -- Amnesty International, Freedom House, U.S. State Department Human Rights Report, and the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group -- have all published reports on Palestinian harassment, arrest and torture of journalists. All four reports conclude that for the sake of self-preservation Palestinian reporters practice "self-censorship."

Over the course of the Palestinian uprising, foreign crews have had their film confiscated when covering events that put the Palestinians in a bad light. The film of the lynching of two Israeli reservists in Ramallah had to be smuggled out for broadcast, and another Italian journalist apologized to the Palestinian Authority after the film was broadcast.

More recently, a Newsweek correspondent and photographer were kidnapped by Palestinians in Gaza.

Either subtly or overtly, reporters are restricted from doing a hard-hitting story on Palestinian corruption, brutality, or violations of Oslo agreements -- without jeopardizing future access to Palestinian sources, and without risk to their lives.

Because of such restricted access to Palestinian sources, Western news agencies rely on their Palestinian staffers, stringers, researchers, facilitators, and film crews for translations, access to Palestinian leadership, and getting the stories and films that are too difficult or dangerous for the foreign correspondent.

Of course, the materials supplied by Palestinian sources are biased. Most of the "suppliers" are anti-Israel and fervent supporters of the Palestinian "cause." And all of them must practice self-censorship for their own safety.

Ehud Ya'ari, a veteran Israeli television analyst and Arab affairs expert, recently wrote in the Jerusalem Report:

"...[O]ver 95 percent of the TV pictures going out on satellite every evening to the various foreign and Israeli channels are supplied by Palestinian film crews. The two principal agencies in the video news market, APTN and Reuters TV, run a whole network of Palestinian stringers, freelancers and fixers all over the territories to provide instant foot-age of the events.

"These crews obviously identify emotionally and politically with the intifada and, in the 'best' case, they simply don't dare film anything that could embarrass the Palestinian Authority. So the cameras are angled to show a tainted view of the Israeli army's actions, never focus on the Palestinian gunmen and diligently produce a very specific kind of close-up of the situation on the ground."

Conclusion

Like an infectious disease, biased reporting cannot be eradicated. But at the same time biased reporting should not be ignored or treated with placebos.

It is time for frustrated consumers to recognize that they have consumer rights and recourse. If you bought a carton of milk that was spoiled, you might ignore it once or twice. But by the third time, you'd go back to the store and demand a satisfactory product, or else you'd switch to a more reliable supplier.

As consumers of the news, we have the right to demand an honest product. But first we have to know spoiled milk when we smell it. That requires educating ourselves about the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the basis of Israeli and Palestinian claims, and current diplomatic complexities.

As consumers who care about the future of the State of Israel, we must educate ourselves so that we can demand an accurate and unbiased media product. To paraphrase Sy Symms, the great clothing salesman: "The best news customer is an educated consumer."

Visitor Comments: 24

(24)
William Bright,
July 15, 2001 12:00 AM

Ignorance or hypocrisy?

Shalom,
It truly amazes me as I read how the press in my country(USA) reports about the conflict in Israel. How can they, the press, report as if both Israel and arafats terrorist are both aggressors. How can they begin to even suggest arafat(I refuse to use capital letters in arafats name) has any right to Eretz Yisrael! Most confess to attending some type of church. These so called churches have the Word of HaShem, telling all these people what portion of land was given to the Jewish people.
My question I ask to the people of America is, do you not understand, or do you just not care? I am an American with great love for Israel and the Jewish people, through the love for HaShem. I believe the answer to my question is the people(not all but most) attend church, but just really don't care. I talk to these "Christians" and they don't seem to hear. I apologize for the media in America, as for me, I will continue to pray daily for Israel and her people!
Shalom Aleikhem, William Bright

(23)
Herb Rosenblum,
July 14, 2001 12:00 AM

Many reporters are lazy.

Many reporters are lazy and do not investigate. I was a reporter for 45 years and have watched as one reporter reads what another has written and writes the same or listens to a broadcast reporter and repeats his words.Yet still more reporters are those who rely on official handouts to get their material. They never go where the action is because its easier to get what they want from a public relations man. This is not all reporters. Most are pretty good but there are far too many who who dont know how to report, how to gather information or simply don't want to.

(22)
Arron Norton,
July 10, 2001 12:00 AM

I need honest reporting!!

I find your article full of facts that so many citizens ignore. I hope that many will read this and stop depending on others to do their research. The only way to truly understand the situation is to do some leg work on your own. This is not only true for the Israeli story but for every news story.

(21)
Jerry Levine,
July 9, 2001 12:00 AM

Addendum

It must be questioned- Why do the palestinians send their young to get killed in the crossfire? Answer- there is no fear or respect of the loss of life of their own people. They have been brainwashed to believe it is glorious to die for the cause. These children are purposely placed in the line of fire for the sake of propaganda. A circus is made of these deaths, Whem Israeli ckildren are killed in cold blood, no media circus occurs, hence no anti-palestinian publicity.Israeli children are never purposely placed in the line of fire-the palestian terrorists actively seek them out to be murdered,preferably en masse, to conform to their leader Arafat's wishes. When the dishonest media ever awakens. maybe this will be realized and published, Meanwhile the only newspaper writer with any degree of fairness to the situation appears to be Cal Thomas. Maybe more of his writings should be published in more arenas.

(20)
david c buxbaum,
July 7, 2001 12:00 AM

good report

your report is fine but needs more depth ,for example even the Mitchell Report is both superficial and attempts to strike an equivalence between Israel and the corrupt,murderous(of its own people and Jews)Palestine dictators.

(19)
Anonymous,
July 7, 2001 12:00 AM

plain truth

What said above is the plain truth, I don't trust reporters because too often are incompetent and biased, particularly in the past during the cold war.
Too many times the anti-semitism has been used to gain high marks score, without fear of backfire. The history repeats itself unfortunately.

(18)
ron rothchild,
July 5, 2001 12:00 AM

mushy nonsense.

This is pseudo-intellectual hogwash. It is like saying that one person murdered and robbed another because he needed the money, or because he knew that other people also commit crimes, or because he didn't know (or maybe didn't believe) that his victim was a nice guy. You can rationalize anything, but some people are murderers and others aren't.

Well, some people are liars and others aren't. Looking beyond the irrelevant immediate circumstances, these journalists parrot the anti-Israel spin because they are dishonest. They have no integrity. It doesn't matter whether it is their own agenda or they are merely being "good nazis", or whatever.

And they have no integrity because it is no longer a requirement for the position. Too many of us are looking for a viewpoint we like and agree with rather than for facts. I know more people than I care to count who think it is sophisticated to soak up Deborah Sontag's drivel as if it was neatly packaged wisdom.

And in the end, we owe that to the loss of "conservative values" that are so unfashionable that, in many quarters (and among many supporters of Israel), a person holding traditional values is not considered fit for public office. So, the law-of-unintended-consequences strikes again!

(17)
Jery Levine,
July 4, 2001 12:00 AM

Excellent analysis

Unfortunately, in my hawkish opinion, this like most pro-Israeli or anti-Arab writings are far too soft on the Arabs and their sympathizers. It is nice to be perceived as the good guy by the readers of the biased media reports, but this agenda has been useless in improving Israel's credibility and goodness in the eyes of most of the world's readers and observers of the media. This total mechanism is helping to perpetuate the downfall of the only middle eastern democracy. Will the last Israeli Jew left, please turn out the lights.

(16)
Anonymous,
July 4, 2001 12:00 AM

What a relief!

Thank you for clearly articulating what I have been trying to express to others. I have quit reading the BBC's stories on the uprising as they just leave me frustrated and irritated beyond words. Aish is such a great resource. I shall pass this link on!

(15)
Anonymous,
July 4, 2001 12:00 AM

thank you

Thanks for this article. Can you please write another one where you tell us what to do about this enormous and disturbing problem.

(14)
Anonymous,
July 4, 2001 12:00 AM

A much needed analysis of the anti-Israel slant

I'd like to see more continued reports on the biased anti-Israel reporting from Lenny Ben-David. Is it possible to have the N.Y. Times or Washington Post op-ed pages run his analysis?

(13)
Anonymous,
July 4, 2001 12:00 AM

Brilliant

I always enjoy reading Lenny's commentary and analysis. As always, it is bright and enlightening. Why doesn't Lenny have an official spokesperson job?
More power to you!

(12)
Tova Mattero,
July 3, 2001 12:00 AM

Tired of Bias

I try to put action to my words, but sending emails of protest to the media don't seem to produce any positive change. Ofcourse, I will continue to do that. I recently found out that AOL now owns Time-Warner, which is CNN. Emails to CNN have, so far, proved fruitless... but I left AOL for another ISP and told them why. Maybe if enough Jews leave AOL, and specify why they are leaving, the message will get through.

(11)
Shoshana Albert,
July 3, 2001 12:00 AM

This is a very, very, very excellent article. Thanks!

What to say?
Informative, insiteful, unemotional!

(10)
Russ Egberts,
July 2, 2001 12:00 AM

I'm offended as well & have a theory for the slanted reporting.

I'm not Jewish and I'm offended by the same news. I also have a theory, oil $ from Arab countries against Israel's existance in the Middle East may also be "feeding - encouraging" bias reporting against Israel.

(9)
Anonymous,
July 2, 2001 12:00 AM

Wall St. Journal gets it right

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page is a superior source for detailed, carefully reasoned analyses of what is going on in Israel. They got it right even before the ink on the Oslo agreements was dry -- this newspaper is definitely worth reading! Their incontrovertible facts and logic are a breath of fresh air in the muddy world of journalism.

(8)
Harry Bloomfield,
July 2, 2001 12:00 AM

good work!

Good work in this article, thanks.

(7)
Anonymous,
July 2, 2001 12:00 AM

Thank you for telling it like it is, Lenny.

How can we get the truth out to the world? I feel sick every time I read the Washington Post or watch network news. I've written complaints but they go unheard. Is there any way your article or something like it can be published in the mainstream print media? I feel as though we are fighting a losing battle with all the misinformation and propaganda "the other side" puts out. If you tell a lie enough times the world believes it as the truth. We are under siege in many ways. What can be done?

(6)
dan strauss,
July 2, 2001 12:00 AM

good information

keep addressing this issue

(5)
Anonymous,
July 2, 2001 12:00 AM

israeli anti semitism

i am a south african jew who has seen the press in this country present a bias opinion in favour of the palestinians. i feel that the majority of the overseas press that we see on the television is bias in favour of the palestinian people because to see children throwing stones at soldiers with guns is a powerful image and appeals to the people who do not know the whole story. the world is naturally anti semitic and critising israel is their way of legitimizing their anti semitism.

(4)
Jennine Wessell,
July 1, 2001 12:00 AM

Excellent, I seek true unbiased facts

I am so exasperated not hearing the truth over the news. So I listen carefully to reporters such as Zola Levitt,& reading Israel's news on virtualjerusalem.com,& aquainting myself with precious Israel's history.

(3)
Shira Levin,
July 1, 2001 12:00 AM

Media bias towards Israel

I have also been exasperated which why I take advantage to have access to the International Jerusalem Post and Haeretz. Now I have discovered another source for Israel news to check out.

(2)
Lawton Cooper,
July 1, 2001 12:00 AM

The Lesson: Get your Middle East news from reliable sources

My wife tells me to simply stop reading the Washington Post for Middle East news, for the sake of my acid reflux, at least. So I get my news on line, choosing websites that reflect the spectrum of mainstream Israeli viewpoints. Even HaAretz, "the New York Times" of Israel and known for its anti-right wing bias, provides coverage of events that are ignored or totally distorted by the mainstream Western media. I sample HaAretz, the Jerusalem Post, and Arutz Sheva.

I'm told that it's a mitzvah to become intoxicated on Purim. This puzzles me, because to my understanding, it is not considered a good thing to become intoxicated, period.

One of the characteristics of the at-risk youth is their use of drugs, including alcohol. In my experience, getting drunk doesn't reveal secrets. It makes people act stupid and irresponsible, doing things they would never do if they were sober. Also, I know a lot about the horrible health effects of abusing alcohol, because I work at a research center that focuses on addiction and substance abuse.

Also, I am an alcoholic, which means that if I drink, very bad things happen. I have not had a drink in 22 years, and I have no intention of starting now. Surely there must be instances where a person is excused from the obligation to drink. I don't see how Judaism could ever promote the idea of getting drunk. It just doesn't seem right.

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Putting aside for a moment all the spiritual and philosophical reasons for getting drunk on Purim, this remains an issue of common sense. Of course, teenagers should be warned of the dangers of acute alcohol ingestion. Of course, nobody should drink and drive. Of course, nobody should become so drunk to the point of negligence in performing mitzvot. And of course, a recovering alcoholic should not partake of alcohol on Purim.

Indeed, the Code of Jewish Law explicitly says that if one suspects the drinking may affect him negatively, then he should NOT drink.

Getting drunk on Purim is actually one of the most difficult mitzvot to do correctly. A person should only drink if it will lead to positive spiritual results - e.g. under the loosening affect of the alcohol, greater awareness will surface of the love for God and Torah found deep in the heart. (Perhaps if we were on a higher spiritual level, we wouldn't need to get drunk!)

Yet the Talmud still speaks of an obligation on Purim of "not knowing the difference between Blessed is Mordechai and Cursed is Haman." How then should a person who doesn't drink get the point of “not knowing”? Simple - just go to sleep! (Rama - OC 695:2)

All this applies to individuals. But the question remains - does drinking on Purim adversely affect the collective social health of the Jewish community?

The aversion to alcoholism is engrained into Jewish consciousness from a number of Biblical and Talmudic sources. There are the rebuking words of prophets - Isaiah 28:1, Hosea 3:1 with Rashi, and Amos 6:6, and the Zohar says that "The wicked stray after wine" (Midrash Ne'alam Parshat Vayera).

It is well known that the rate of alcoholism among Jews has historically been very low. Numerous medical, psychological and sociological studies have confirmed this. The connection between Judaism and sobriety is so evident, that the following conversation is reported by Lawrence Kelemen in "Permission to Receive":

When Dr. Mark Keller, editor of the Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, commented that "practically all Jews do drink, and yet all the world knows that Jews hardly ever become alcoholics," his colleague, Dr. Howard Haggard, director of Yale's Laboratory of Applied Physiology, jokingly proposed converting alcoholics to the Jewish religion in order to immerse them in a culture with healthy attitudes toward drinking!

Perhaps we could suggest that it is precisely because of the use of alcohol in traditional ceremonies (Kiddush, Bris, Purim, etc.), that Jews experience such low rates of alcoholism. This ceremonial usage may actually act like an inoculation - i.e. injecting a safe amount that keeps the disease away.

Of course, as we said earlier, all this needs to be monitored with good common sense. Yet in my personal experience - having been in the company of Torah scholars who were totally drunk on Purim - they acted with extreme gentleness and joy. Amid the Jewish songs and beautiful words of Torah, every year the event is, for me, very special.

Adar 12 marks the dedication of Herod's renovations on the second Holy Temple in Jerusalem in 11 BCE. Herod was king of Judea in the first century BCE who constructed grand projects like the fortresses at Masada and Herodium, the city of Caesarea, and fortifications around the old city of Jerusalem. The most ambitious of Herod's projects was the re-building of the Temple, which was in disrepair after standing over 300 years. Herod's renovations included a huge man-made platform that remains today the largest man-made platform in the world. It took 10,000 men 10 years just to build the retaining walls around the Temple Mount; the Western Wall that we know today is part of that retaining wall. The Temple itself was a phenomenal site, covered in gold and marble. As the Talmud says, "He who has not seen Herod's building, has never in his life seen a truly grand building."

Some people gauge the value of themselves by what they own. But in reality, the entire concept of ownership of possessions is based on an illusion. When you obtain a material object, it does not become part of you. Ownership is merely your right to use specific objects whenever you wish.

How unfortunate is the person who has an ambition to cleave to something impossible to cleave to! Such a person will not obtain what he desires and will experience suffering.

Fortunate is the person whose ambition it is to acquire personal growth that is independent of external factors. Such a person will lead a happy and rewarding life.

With exercising patience you could have saved yourself 400 zuzim (Berachos 20a).

This Talmudic proverb arose from a case where someone was fined 400 zuzim because he acted in undue haste and insulted some one.

I was once pulling into a parking lot. Since I was a bit late for an important appointment, I was terribly annoyed that the lead car in the procession was creeping at a snail's pace. The driver immediately in front of me was showing his impatience by sounding his horn. In my aggravation, I wanted to join him, but I saw no real purpose in adding to the cacophony.

When the lead driver finally pulled into a parking space, I saw a wheelchair symbol on his rear license plate. He was handicapped and was obviously in need of the nearest parking space. I felt bad that I had harbored such hostile feelings about him, but was gratified that I had not sounded my horn, because then I would really have felt guilty for my lack of consideration.

This incident has helped me to delay my reactions to other frustrating situations until I have more time to evaluate all the circumstances. My motives do not stem from lofty principles, but from my desire to avoid having to feel guilt and remorse for having been foolish or inconsiderate.

Today I shall...

try to withhold impulsive reaction, bearing in mind that a hasty act performed without full knowledge of all the circumstances may cause me much distress.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...